| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The proposal introduces development outside the settlement limits defined in the proposals map and is therefore considered contrary to saved policy HOU7 (New residential development) and HOU8 (Individual dwellings or small groups of dwellings) and adopted core strategy policies CS2 and CS3 which seek to direct housing development to sustainable locations, which are reinforced by emergent policy GSP1 of the Local Plan Part 2. The proposal is not submitted for agricultural or other exception purposes outlined by paragraph 80 of NPPF (2021) nor adopted local plan policy HOU10 or emergent local plan part 2 policy H5. |
| 2. | The scale of the proposal is considered excessive in part because of the large roof area generated by the high pitch and the large glazed vertical circulation area to the front facade. These are considered contrary to Adopted Core Strategy Policy CS9 and emergent local plan part 2 policy A2 (design) and to have adverse impact in terms of landscape concerns raised at Core Strategy Policy CS11 - Enhancing the natural environment paragraph e) where "Safeguarding and where possible enhancing the borough's wider landscape character", is required and where a development of this scale on this site will have adverse impact. |
| 3. | The application will result in a poor use of land with a density below the aspirations set out in established local plan policy HOU17 and emergent local plan part 2 policy H3 which requires that low density residential developments, particularly those on land graded 1 or 2 in agricultural land value or greenfield land, that do not meet minimum density standards or fail to demonstrate relevant exceptional circumstances will not be permitted. |
| 4. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above. |
